The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maximillian Hekmat

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and WP:COI. Fuddle (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a promotional article, clearly created by either the subject themselves or someone with a close connection to them. The sources in this article are a combination of passing mentions, WP:CIRCULAR links, and one interview. None of this helps him pass WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. Could someone help me improve this article? I am new user and previous person’s post does not mean anything. I appreciate some plain constructive help here. --Mjhekmat (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wikipedia has a set of guidelines for when topics can have articles written about them, which generally boil down to saying that the world must have taken notice in a documented way. To quote the main guideline, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention." There is a specialized set of criteria for evaluating the notability of scientists, scholars and researchers. As it stands, the article is lacking the kind of sources that would help it pass these criteria, and looking for additional sources has not turned any up. (This is of course not a judgment of personal worth, just about suitability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Most of the volunteers here aren't notable by these standards, either!) In addition, Wikipedia strongly frowns upon making edits where one has a Conflict of Interest. While the jargon can be intimidating — "COI", "NPROF", etc. — and the policies and guidelines can take a while to read, they represent years of learning the hard way how to handle a project, and generally make sense given a little time and study. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the subject passes the criteria we use to judge notability of scientists and academics. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTCV. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.